Court rules on habeas, county government immunity
The Supreme Court, dividing 5-4, ruled on Tuesday that federal trial judges have discretion whether or not to dismiss a prisoner’s habeas petition as too late, even though a state had conceded erroneously that the petition had been filed on time. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the Court would not choose an inflexible rule that dismissal would be required whenever the one-year filing deadline had expired. The judge has discretion to raise a time bar, the Court said, by choosing whether to dismiss the case or reach the merits in the interest of justice. Both sides, however, must be given a chance to react before the judge may act. In the case of Day v. McDonough (04-1324), the judge opted for dismissal.
The decision upheld a ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court that the state’s failure to argue that the filing deadline had passed is not a waiver, leaving the trial judge with discretion whether to dismiss the case on his or her own. Other Circuit Courts had disagreed. The Eleventh Circuit had upheld the dismissal as untimely of a Florida inmate’s habeas challenge to his murder conviction and 55-year prison sentence.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in the main dissenting opinion, also speaking for Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Clarence Thomas, argued that federal court rules follow the traditional view that a failure to plead a statute of limitations defense amounts to a forfeiture. “Forfeiture of the limitations defense is demonstrably not inconsistent with traditional habeas practice,” Scalia wrote.
Justice John Paul Stevens, in a separate dissenting opinion joined in part by Justice Breyer, said that the Court should have postponed its judgment in the case until after it rules on a new case, Lawrence v. Florida (05-8820), raising different habeas issues; it was granted review last month and due to be decided in the next Term starting in October. That case, Stevens said, would settle whether the petition in the Day case was barred by the habeas limitations statute. Breyer joined that part of the dissent. Stevens added, on his own, that he agreed with Ginsburg’s opinion on the legal issue on which the Day case was granted review. That made the vote on the merits 6-3. The questions presented in the Lawrence case can be found here.
In the only other ruling Tuesday on an argued case, the Justices decided unanimously that an entity that cannot qualify as an arm of a state government cannot claim common law immunity to a private civil lawsuit. In this case, the entity was the county government of Chatham County, Ga., which sought immunity to a lawsuit by a couple whose boat was damaged when a drawbridge on the Wilmingon River drifted downward after being opened for the boat. The decision in Northern Insurance v. Chatham County (04-1618) reversed a decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court saying hat “common law has carved out a residual immunity,” protecting a political subdivision such as the county from suit. There was no issue over Eleventh Amendment immunity; as conceded by the county.
Tuesday’s decisions were the first on the merits in which new Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., participated. He voted with the Ginsburg majority in Day, and, of course, with the unanimous Court in the Georgia county case.
Additional decisions on argued cases are expected Wednesday.
Cornell has the text. This is a fascinating lineup. The next time someone implies that the Justices can be neatly plotted on a conservative-liberal spectrum and the prosecution v. defense lineup predicted from that, this case is Exhibit A for the rebuttal.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — April 25, 2006 @ 11:16 am
Fascinating reading. Ginsburg’s opinion is the “conservative” view, and Scalia’s the “libera” view, with Breyer seeming to be on both sides and Stevens concurring in the result.
Comment by Rumpole — April 25, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
Note that although Stevens and Breyer have filed a joint dissent from the Court’s judgment, Stevens agrees with Gizburg’s opinion and Breyer agrees with Scalia’s dissent.
Comment by Rumpole — April 25, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
There is little chance the line-up in the habeas case will discourage those who neatly divide justices into white and black boxes. Scalia has chosen extremely liberal positions for the court and in dissent and it has made no difference. He thinks you have a 4th Amendment privacy right in the back of your stereo, he thinks 24 hours, not 48, is the most an arrestee can be constituionally held without a judge passing on probable cause, he (alone, except for Justice Stevens) thinks an American cannot be held by the executive as an enemy combatant (absent congressional suspension of habeas corpus). So why think today’s case will change the minds of the Scalia haters?
Comment by rodgerlodger — April 25, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Roger, are you asking me? I don’t think it will change the minds of the people you describe. I just think it is useful evidence to the contrary. Arguing with people who are impervious to evidence is for the purpose of convincing the spectators, not the participants.
BTW, have any of the other SCOTUS-watchers here ever seen an opinion “dissenting in the judgment” before? I don’t recall one.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — April 25, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
If we are going to acknowledge–as we should–that Justice Scalia’s votes aren’t always neatly pigeon-holed into the so-called “conservative agenda,” then we should acknowledged that the same is true of the purported “liberal” Justices.
Of course, this does not mean that the labels “liberal” and “conservative” are utterly meaningless. (Michael Dukakis famously tried to argue that these labels were meanningless, and we remember how well that worked.) Over the course of 100 cases, Justice Scalia will vote with the conservative viewpoint considerably more often than Justice Breyer will. It isn’t just an accident that the conservatives are bigger fans of Scalia than they are of Breyer.
Comment by Marc Shepherd — April 26, 2006 @ 10:22 am